gbif_validator_validate_tabular

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent open-world operation. The description adds that a validation report with field-level issues is returned, but it does not explain the non-read-only/non-idempotent behavior (likely job creation) or that the URL must be publicly fetchable – a key operational constraint left to the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, then checks, then use cases, then return value – a sensible order. Slight redundancy between 'before creating archives' and 'before creating Darwin Core Archives', which costs a bit of tightness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does carry some return-value burden and addresses it briefly ('validation report with field-level issues'). But for an open-world, non-idempotent tool that fetches a remote URL, it omits whether validation is synchronous or job-based (the existence of gbif_validator_get_status hints at the latter) and any URL accessibility failure behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both fileUrl (file format expectations, DwC headers, public accessibility) and fileType (enum, delimiter) are fully documented by the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond naming CSV/TSV, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (tabular CSV/TSV files) plus what is checked (headers, types, required fields, format compliance). It implicitly separates itself from gbif_validator_validate_dwca by scoping to raw tabular files, but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives usage context ('data preparation workflows, pre-publication validation, quality assurance before creating Darwin Core Archives'), which implies when to reach for it. However, it never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to pick instead – notably when to use this versus gbif_validator_validate_dwca (whole archive) or gbif_validator_get_status (job results).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.